Management teams and other groups play a key role in strategic
decision making. These groups include top management teams (Hambrick and
Mason, 1984), boards of directors (Forbes, 1999; Pettigrew, 1992), and
planning task forces (Van de Ven, 1980). The acknowledgement of the
importance of groups in strategic decision making has led to a stream of
research termed organizational demographics (Hambrick and Mason, 1984).
This research focuses on examining the relationships between certain
group composition factors and both the strategic decision-making process
that is used and ultimately organizational performance (Haleblian and
Finkelstein 1993; Hambrick and Mason, 1984; Hurst et al., 1989; Peterson
et al., 2003; Staw, 1991; Walsh and Fahey, 1986; Zaccaro, 2001; Zaccaro
and Klimoski, 2002). While these authors explore the composite of
individual

decision-making characteristics or demographics, we propose a new,
group-level construct called group cognitive style (GCS), defined
broadly as group-level patterns of behavior in the strategic
decision-making process of a group.

Because research in group decision making has shown both
consistency (Daft and Weick, 1984; Miles and Snow, 1978) and variability
(Mintzberg et al., 1976) in the decision-making processes adopted by
groups over time, it is critical that we begin to model the underlying
factors that may explain these differences more clearly. In order to do
this, we need to focus our research on group-level constructs, rather
than on an aggregate or average of individual demographic and
psychological factors currently used in organizational demographics
research. As the use of group decision making in organizations continues
to increase, researchers need a theoretical model that explains
differences in decision making and problem solving at the group level of
analysis. The model proposed here suggests that decision process
differences are the result of differences in the cognitive style of the
group as a whole. It is suggested that, just as individuals have a
cognitive style, or a characteristic way of gathering and processing
information for decision making, groups also develop such consistency in
information processing and decision-making behavior. The cognitive style
of the group is proposed to reflect differences in the composition and
structure of the group, as well as the cognitive style and the social
interaction of individual group members. In order to provide a
foundation for developing a model of group cognitive style, we will
begin with a brief overview of the organizational demographics
literature in order to provide an understanding of why the concept of
group cognitive style is needed to expand our understanding of
organizational demographics and strategic decision-making processes. We
will then discuss why the concept of group cognitive style is important
and how it differs from the concept of individual cognitive style.
Finally, we will develop propositions followed by a discussion of the
managerial implications of exploring the concept of group cognitive
style and conclude with suggestions for future research.

ORGANIZATIONAL DEMOGRAPHICS

Research in organizational demographics focuses mainly on
identifying the individual characteristics of decision making and
aggregating or averaging these characteristics to explore the
relationship between the homogeneity or heterogeneity of the top
management team and strategic decision-making processes or
organizational performance. Individual variables that have been examined
in the organizational demographics literature include both demographic
and psychological variables. Demographic variables such as an
individual's age, tenure in the firm, education level, and
functional background have been examined (Bantel and Jackson, 1989;
Hambrick and Mason, 1984), as well as psychological variables such as
locus of control, tolerance for ambiguity, and cognitive style (Hurst et
al., 1989; Slater, 1989).

The main weakness of these studies lies in the fact that while
individual characteristics can be measured, aggregating the
individual-level data into a "group-level variable" poses both
conceptual and statistical problems (Morgeson and Hofmann, 1999; Roberts
et al., 1978). To date, most of this work has utilized an average of
individual measures or a measure of dispersion to indicate how
homogeneous a group is on certain variables, and has focused mainly on
aggregating demographic variables. Very little work has been done on
group-level psychological dimensions that affect decision making.

One notable exception is the work of Hurst, Rush, and White (1989).
In their development of the creative management model of strategic
decision making, these authors argue that differences in cognitive
preferences, or differences in the way that individuals prefer to
process information, have an impact on their ability to identify and
exploit strategic opportunities. Their model suggests that there is a
relationship between individual cognitive style and the definition of an
issue as strategic versus non-strategic.

While the variables examined in organizational demographics
research have been linked to firm performance (Bantel and Jackson, 1989;
Eisenhardt and Schoonhoven, 1990; Finkelstein and Hambrick, 1990;
Wiersema and Bantel, 1992), many researchers believe that other,
possibly more important mediating and/ or moderating, variables are
being ignored. For instance, Priem, Lyon, and Dess (1999) argue that
because the majority of this research has focused on individual decision
making, there is still a large "causal gap" in the empirical
literature between executive demographics, decision-making processes,
and firm performance. They suggest that variables such as group
interaction processes, group affect, and effective implementation still
need to be explored in the strategic decision-making process. Lawrence
describes this gap as the "black box of organizational
demography" (1997: 1). She argues that scholars are making a
congruence assumption when they assume that demographic predictors
intended to represent top management team cognitive heterogeneity are
congruent with the intervening processes through which they are
theorized to influence firm performance. She goes on to say that the
intermediate steps in theorizing causal chains (i.e., that TMT cognitive
heterogeneity produces greater conflict, which improves decision quality
and ultimately firm performance) are not tested but are assumed to be
true in demographics-based research.

If we are making congruence assumptions between top management team
demographics and strategic decision-making processes, it is clear that
the exploration of these processes at the group level of analysis and
the development of group-level constructs is imperative. In the next
section, we argue that the concept of group cognitive style is an
important construct for increasing our understanding of the causal chain between individual decision makers and organizational performance.

WHY GROUP COGNITIVE STYLE IS IMPORTANT

In strategic decision-making literature, it has been suggested that
differences in strategic decision-making outcome, defined in such terms
as differences in speed to a solution, number of errors, member
satisfaction, and group cohesiveness, are a function of the type of
decision process used, the social interaction between group members, and
the nature of the group's composition (Milliken and Vollrath, 1991;
Mintzberg, 1978). When decisions are made in a group setting, it is a
social situation and the group's decision may be influenced by
social interaction among the various members of the decision-making
team. Hurst et al. (1989) suggested that who interacts with whom and how
they interact will have an impact on strategic decision-making
processes. They also suggested that differences in the cognitive style
composition of the decision-making team leads to differences in problem
identification that leads to differences in decision processes.
Subsequently, differences in decision processes affect firm strategy and
performance. Specifically, they proposed a number of very interesting
relationships. First, they proposed that organizations, like
individuals, have distinct cognitive preferences. Second, they suggested
that differences in the cognitive preference composition of the top
management team will lead to different "patterns of behavior"
over time.

In this article, we develop the concept of group cognitive style
and address three main questions. These include: 1) Where does group
cognitive style come from?, 2) Can decision-making behaviors be
predicted on the basis of group cognitive style?, and 3) Do differences
in behavioral patterns explained by the concept of group cognitive style
account for differences in the type of solution that is chosen?

INDIVIDUAL VERSUS GROUP COGNITIVE STYLE

Individual Cognitive Style

Cognitive style has received a great deal of attention in the
decision-making literature, and is defined as the way in which
individuals process and evaluate information. The link between cognitive
style (termed decision style or problem-solving style in some studies),
and decision behavior was first proposed by Ackhoff (1962) and Churchman
(1961). Empirically, the effects of cognitive style on the decision
process have been demonstrated by a number of authors. Mason and Mitroff
(1973) examined cognitive style based on the Jungian dimensions of
sensing/intuition and thinking/feeling (lung, 1971), and McKenney and
Keen (1974) operationalized cognitive style in terms of information
gathering and information evaluation. Driver and Mock (1975) examined
cognitive style with regard to the number of alternatives generated and
the amount of information used. Johnson (1978) defined cognitive style
in terms of information gathering and information processing, and
Basadur, Graen and Wakabayashi (1990) examined cognitive style in terms
of how knowledge is gained and how knowledge is used.

Because the Jungian terminology of cognitive styles used by Mason
and Mitroff (1973) is often used to discuss and measure cognitive style,
and we will use it to discuss the concept of group cognitive style, we
will provide a brief overview of Jung's work. Jung (1923) proposed
that individuals could be categorized based on the pairing between their
perception and judgment tendencies. Perception involves all the ways of
becoming aware of things, people, happenings, or ideas while judgment
involves all of the ways of coming to conclusions about what has been
perceived. Perception of information gathered can be further subdivided
into two categories, sensing versus intuition. Sensing individuals
utilize their five senses to gather information from the environment
while intuitive individuals tend to focus on possibilities, meanings,
and relationships by way of insight and deductive thinking. Judgment or
decision making can also be further subdivided into two categories,
thinking versus feeling. Thinking individuals make logical connections
during the decision process. They rely on principles of cause and effect
and they make decisions analytically by examining facts. Feeling
individuals, on the other hand, weigh the relative values and merits of
an issue, and rely on an understanding of personal values and group
values in decision making.

Jung also spent a great deal of time exploring how people prefer to
process the information they are gathering. He termed this dimension
extraversion versus introversion. Extraverted individuals process
information through social interaction. They develop and build on their
ideas through interaction with others. Introverted individuals process
information internally. They prefer to develop ideas and make decisions
in isolation. The behavioral tendencies often observed for each of the
dimensions proposed by Jung are shown in Table 1.

In the Hurst et al. (1989) article mentioned earlier, it was
suggested that differences in strategic decision-making behavior will
result in differences in the decision process, differences in the type
of solutions which are chosen, and ultimately differences in the
resulting organizational strategy. For instance, a sensing manager would
most likely define a problem in immediate, operational terms while an
intuitive manager, able to see the big picture, would more likely define
a problem in strategic terms. When a problem is defined as strategic
versus operational, most likely, a solution will be chosen which matches
the problem definition. Cognitive style, or how individuals gather and
evaluate information, would therefore have an effect on the resulting
organizational strategy. But what happens to the concept of cognitive
style when the decision is made by a group of individuals or a
management team? This requires moving the concept of cognitive style
from the individual level to the group level of conceptualization and
analysis.

Group Cognitive Style

Despite the development of the concept of cognitive style at the
individual level, its relevance to group decision making and
organization direction has not been fully or systematically exploited.
Milliken and Martins (1996) claim that very few organizational studies
actually focus on how cognitive diversity in the composition of a group
with respect to attitudes, personality characteristics, or cultural
values may be associated with different patterns of behavior. They argue
that demographic heterogeneity is used merely as a proxy for cognitive
variety within the top management team and that organizational
demographics research does not take into account differences that may
result from the social interaction of group members who are cognitively
heterogeneous. For instance, while cognitive diversity may aid in the
generation and evaluation of strategic alternatives, that same cognitive
diversity may reduce communication among group members (Zenger and
Lawrence, 1989).

In order to develop the concept of group cognitive style, it is
necessary to move the concept of cognitive style from the individual to
the group level of analysis. This is not a new concept. Recently, a
number of authors have proposed that it is possible to utilize theories
developed at one level of analysis (e.g., individual decision-making
models) to understand similar phenomena at other levels of analysis
(e.g., group and/or organizational decision making) (House et al.,
1995). Morgeson and Hofmann (1999) argue that integrating variables
across multiple levels of analysis may provide a more truthful account
of organizational phenomena. Such an approach was suggested by Simon
(1987) when he proposed that the knowledge we have gained of individual
decision making and problem solving should be applied to larger social
entities such as groups and organizations. Rajagopalan, Rasheed and
Datta (1993) suggest that cognitive psychological theories of decision
making (e.g. Bateman and Ziethaml, 1989; Kahneman and Tversky, 1984) and
theories of group decision making (Gladstein and O'Reilly, 1985)
might contribute to a better understanding of the strategic decision
process used by top management teams.

When a theory spans the levels of organizational behavior and
performance, typically describing some combination of individuals,
dyads, teams, businesses, corporations, and industries, it is termed a
multilevel theory (Klein et al., 1999). A multi-level effect exists when
a phenomenon or a relationship between variables is found to occur at
more than one level or unit of analysis (Rousseau, 1985). Klein,
Dansereau, and Hall make the claim that theories that specify such
effects are "uniquely powerful and parsimonious" (1994: 223).
Their power stems from their ability to utilize research from one level
to speak to problems at another level. Their parsimony stems from their
reduction of the inevitable confusion that occurs when researchers from
different disciplines are studying the same phenomenon without knowing
it (Johns, 1999).

We are not the first to argue for a multi-level approach to the
concept of cognitive style. A number of authors have suggested that just
as individuals have stable cognitive preferences, ongoing, intact groups
may also have stable cognitive preferences that have developed over time
and remain relatively consistent across situations (Myers and McCaulley,
1985; Staw, 1990). Staw (1991) suggests that we can better understand
organizational decision making by examining the psychological processes
of managers and viewing them as "group dispositions" which
develop over time and remain relatively consistent across decision
settings. In essence, he is suggesting that the whole notion of
behavioral dispositions (or "styles") be generalized to
management teams, or even to the organization as a whole. Strategic
decision making often involves information processing and evaluation by
a group of decision makers rather than by an isolated individual and,
therefore, it is reasonable to propose that a group-level variable or
group disposition of importance would be group cognitive style.

When discussing group-level variables, the whole group, not
individual actions or characteristics of individuals within the group,
is examined as an entity. While the concept of group cognitive style has
not been specifically defined in the literature, the idea of group-level
cognition or collective cognition has been discussed. The organizational
behavior and decision-making literature is replete with examples of
collective versus individual cognition. Collective cognition is
displayed by such phenomenon as "groupthink" (Janis, 1972),
which refers to group-level information bias;
"solution-mindedness" (Hoffman and Maier, 1967), where group
decision makers were found to agree on a solution very early in the
problem-solving process, regardless of their initial differences of
opinion; and social decision scheme theory (Davis, 1973), which examines
the effects of various individual preferences on group decision making
and demonstrates how group preferences differ from those of individuals
within the group.

One of the important outcomes of organizational demographics
research has been development of the concept of dominant management
logic or the cognitive maps (or minds) of the top management team. With
regard to organizational cognitive maps, Prahalad and Bettis (1986)
proposed that companies' strategic decisions are guided by a
dominant management logic that is a shared understanding of the factors
relevant to the business strategy and the relationship between these
factors. They suggest that the dominant logic is a shared schema (a term
generally used to describe individual-level cognitive structures) among
the dominant coalition of a firm. Unfortunately, while the concept is
appealing, they do not elaborate on the process by which
individual-level cognitions are combined into organizational schemata
(Schwenk, 1995). While these authors define the dominant management
logic as the way the top management team members collectively understand
their environment, we are proposing that the dominant logic is the
result of social interaction over time and this continued social
interaction also leads to a cognitive "style" or patterns of
behavior by the top management team that we have termed "group
cognitive style."

Taking a multi-level approach to theorizing about cognitive style,
we make the assumption that, just like individuals, groups develop a
preference for information processing and information evaluation, and
these preferences are reflected in a "group cognitive style."
Over time, as the group members interact with each other and with the
decision-making environment, they develop patterns of behavior in terms
of how they gather and process information and how they evaluate that
information in order to make a decision. These characteristic patterns
of behavior are defined as group cognitive style. Using the Jungian
typology as a basis for developing cognitive style at the group level,
an extraverted group, like an extraverted individual, would be expected
to process information through social interaction with individuals and
groups external to the group, while an introverted group would prefer to
develop ideas and process information within the group, among group
members. For example, an extraverted group might bring in experts and/or
consultants to assist in making decisions while an introverted group
would be more likely to discuss the problem and make a decision using
the expertise of the group members. A sensing group would be expected to
gather information and define problems in immediate, detailed,
operational terms, while an intuitive group would be expected to gather
and process information in abstract, theoretical terms focusing on
possibilities, meanings and strategic relationships. A thinking group
would be expected to evaluate information using logic and facts, while a
feeling group would be expected to evaluate information by weighing the
relative values and merits of an issue. A perceptive group, with a
preference for gathering information rather than evaluating information,
would tend to continue to seek alternatives and evaluate those
alternatives using multiple criteria, while a judging group, preferring
order, structure, and seeking closure, would tend to evaluate
information and select an alternative very quickly. We have all
experienced groups that cannot make decisions. It is likely that this
type of group would be a perceiving group rather than a judging group.

In the next three sections, we will return to the questions
proposed earlier and develop propositions related to these questions.
These questions included: 1) Where does group cognitive style come
from?, 2) Can decision-making behaviors be predicted on the basis of
group cognitive style?, and 3) Do differences in behavioral patterns
explained by the concept of group cognitive style account for
differences in the type of solution that is chosen?

QUESTIONS AND PROPOSITIONS

Where Does Group Cognitive Style Come From?

Given that over time a group develops a group cognitive style, the
next obvious issue concerns how this style develops or is constructed. A
number of possible sources that might determine group cognitive style
are suggested in the literature. One possible explanation of group
cognitive style may be the approach taken by organizational demographics
researchers, who define group-level constructs by determining the
greatest number (i.e., simple majority) or average of the
individuals' demographic characteristics. With regard to cognitive
style, for instance, if a group of four has three individuals who are
thinkers versus feelers, a simple majority would suggest that the group
would be a thinking group. Likewise, if a group has two very weak
thinkers and two very strong feelers, averaging individual cognitive
styles would suggest that the group would be a feeling group. These
approaches would lead to the following competing propositions:

[P.sub.1]: The majority of individual cognitive styles will predict
group cognitive style.

[P.sub.2]: The average of individual cognitive styles will predict
group cognitive style.

Group cognitive style might also be determined by the structure of
the group, specifically statuses and roles of individual members. The
status system within the group reflects the general pattern of social
influence among group members and research has indicated that people
with higher status speak more often and are spoken to more often than
others (Ridgeway, 1981; Strodtbeck and Lipinski, 1985). In work on
social networks, this individual would occupy a position of high
indegree centrality (Brass, 1992). Because the highest status individual
or individual with high indegree centrality interacts more with others
in the group, the group cognitive style may reflect the individual
cognitive style of the highest status member of the group. In addition,
status or distribution of power among group members is positively
related to use of political influence tactics (Ginsberg, 1990). In any
group there may be high-status members who have the power to influence
others. It has been shown that when high-status individuals are present
in a group, both high- and low-status members direct their communication
to them (Hurwitz et al., 1968).

Therefore, in the context of group decision making, information is
exchanged through a communication structure that is dependent on the
status of group members. Over time, the group, utilizing the
communication structure, begins to formulate general agreement regarding
decision behaviors that ought to be employed in processing available
information and/or arriving at decisional choices (Hirokawa and
Johnston, 1989). These agreed-upon patterns of behavior would suggest
the following proposition:

[P.sub.3]: The cognitive style of the highest status individual
will predict group cognitive style.

Roles are also important in the group setting, and one role that
can be found in nearly all groups is that of a leader. Research in the
area of implicit leadership theories, relevant to emergent as well as to
appointed and elected leaders, indicates that people apparently possess
shared beliefs about leaders' behaviors and traits, which affect
how they respond or behave toward a leader (Lord, 1985; Rush and
Russell, 1988). Two types of leaders are suggested in the
literature--task leaders and socio-emotional leaders. A task leader
concentrates on task completion, while a socio-emotional leader focuses
on being supportive and considerate of group members. Because the
leadership role is so important in the group setting, it may have some
influence on group cognitive style. In other words, group cognitive
style may be a reflection of the individual cognitive style of the
leader as mediated through social influence processes.

As mentioned earlier, Hurst et al. (1989) suggest that the patterns
of interaction among team members (i.e., who interacts with whom and how
they interact) will be a critical aspect of group cognitive style
preference. Social influence processes may determine the extent to which
individual cognitions are employed during group decision-making
deliberations (Walsh et al., 1988). The participation level of each
member of the top management group determines the relative use of
individual cognitive styles by the group (Walsh and Fahey, 1986). For
example, if one member of the management team is appointed or elected as
the team leader, his or her participation level in the decision task
would naturally be higher than other members. In another case, a leader
may emerge due to his or her concern for group members. In this
situation, his or her participation in the decision process may be
higher than other members. In both examples, the cognitive style of the
team leader(s), either the task or socio-emotional leader, may determine
the group's cognitive style. This would suggest the following
propositions:

[P.sub.4]: The cognitive style of the task leader will predict
group cognitive style.

[P.sub.5]: The cognitive style of the socio-emotional leader will
predict group cognitive style.

Group cognitive style may also, as Mintzberg (1978) suggested, be
affected by the social interaction of group members. A strongly
extraverted individual who dominates the social interaction in the group
may lead to a group cognitive style that is a reflection of the
individual cognitive style of that individual. If, for instance, one
person completely dominates the discussion and decision process involved
in deciding whether or not to enter a new market segment, other group
members may not have the opportunity to contribute to the process. In
this case, the group cognitive style may be a reflection of the most
extraverted member of the group. This possibility is reflected in the
following proposition:

[P.sub.6]: The cognitive style of the most extraverted individual
will predict group cognitive style.

The proposed relationships between individual cognitive style,
group structure, status, roles, and social interaction variables, and
group cognitive style are illustrated in Figure I.

[FIGURE I OMITTED]

Can Decision-Making Behaviors be Predicted on the Basis of Group
Cognitive Style?

The general proposition is that differences in group cognitive
style will result in differences in the decision-making behavior and the
decision-making process. The decision process is normally defined in
terms of four stages: 1) problem definition, 2) information acquisition,
3) information evaluation, and 4) choice. In this section, each of these
stages will be examined in relation to differences in group cognitive
style.

Problem Definition. A problem can be defined on a continuum from
operational to strategic. Strategic problems require strategic solutions
that involve long-term decisions that determine the future direction of
the organization. At the other end of the continuum, operational
problems are day-to-day problems that require operational solutions.
Many of these decisions are related to staffing, purchasing, and work
flow. Carlyn (1977) found that intuitive managers defined problems in
broad, global terms while sensing managers defined problems in terms of
situational control. Roach (1986) also found that executives (those
making strategic decisions) were more often intuitive than sensing, and
supervisors (those dealing with operational, day-to-day decisions) were
more often sensing than intuitive. When translated to the group level of
analysis, this would lead to the following proposition:

Information Acquisition. Extraverts prefer acquiring and processing
information through social interaction while introverts prefer to
process information internally. This would indicate that extraverted
groups would prefer to interact with individuals and groups outside
their own group in order to gather and process information while
introverts would prefer to process information internally, between group
members. This is reflected in the proposition below:

[P.sub.8]: Extraverted groups will gather more information from
external sources, while introverted groups will gather more information
from internal sources.

Information Evaluation. In order to evaluate information, group
members must interact and communicate with one another. The two main
types of interaction or evaluation are termed instrumental and
expressive (Bales, 1950). Instrumental interaction is characterized by
asking for information and giving suggestions in problem-solving groups.
Expressive interaction is characterized by affective or socio-emotional
behaviors such as affection, dependency, and support toward a fellow
group member or toward the group. In terms of cognitive style, thinking
individuals tend to rely on logical connections, cause and effect, and
the analysis of facts in the decision process. The feeling individual,
on the other hand, weighs the relative values and merits of an issue,
and relies on an understanding of personal values and group values in
decision making.

It is likely that the group cognitive style will determine the type
of interaction that occurs in the group setting. A more thinking group
would be likely to exhibit instrumental interaction during the
evaluation process, while a more feeling group would likely exhibit
expressive interaction during the evaluation process. This is reflected
in the proposition below:

Choice. The choice stage of the decision process is characterized
by selecting among alternatives. In terms of cognitive style, this
primarily involves judgment versus perception. As mentioned above,
judging individuals prefer to evaluate information and come to a
decision while perceptive individuals prefer to continue gathering
information and remain flexible. At the group level of analysis, this
would indicate that judging groups would follow a more structured
decision process than perceiving groups and that perceiving groups would
utilize more criteria, develop more alternatives and take longer to come
to a decision. These characteristics are captured in the following
proposition.

[P.sub.10]: Perceiving groups will use more decision criteria,
develop more alternatives, and take longer to make decisions than
judging groups.

Do Differences in Behavioral Patterns Explained by the Concept of
Group Cognitive Style Account for Differences in the Type of Solution
that is Chosen?

As discussed above, solutions can be characterized as either
operational or strategic, and the definition of a problem as either
operational or strategic would be related to the type of solution that
is chosen. As discussed in the Hurst et al. study (1989), individual
differences in cognitive style impact one's ability to identify and
exploit strategic opportunities. They proposed that there was a
relationship between individual cognitive style and the definition of an
issue as strategic versus non-strategic. This finding at the individual
level of analysis should hold true at the group level of analysis as
well. This is reflected in our final proposition:

[P.sub.11]: Definition of a problem as a strategic problem will
result in the selection of a strategic solution, while definition of a
problem as an operational problem will result in the selection of an
operational solution.

The complete multi-level model of group cognitive style as it
relates to the strategic decision-making process as well as the decision
outcome is shown in Figure II.

[FIGURE II OMITTED]

DISCUSSION

A review of the literature concerning strategic decision making
indicated that very little research has been done which attempts to link
the psychological characteristics of an entire group or groups of
decision makers to the strategic decision-making processes of the
organization. While models such as the one proposed by Mintzberg (1978)
suggest that organizational direction results from a stream of decisions
made by individuals and/or groups at all levels of the organization, the
majority of the research examining organizational direction has focused
on individual decision makers rather than on groups of decision makers.
At the individual level of analysis, research has shown that decision
makers display consistent patterns of decision-making behavior. The
general question we addressed was whether or not a similar phenomenon
could be identified at the group level of analysis. We have introduced
the concept of group cognitive style and defined it as a group's
preferred way of gathering, processing, and evaluating information.

We have sought to address these issues by suggesting that 1) group
decision-making style could be predicted from individual cognitive
style, 2) group decision-making processes could be predicted on the
basis of the group's cognitive style, and 3) there is a
relationship between the way a problem is defined by a group and the
solution which the group chooses.

Therefore, we argue that the notion of group cognitive style
provides a missing link, or at least partially fills a void in much of
the conceptual and empirical work designed to link individual
decision-making processes to strategic decision making and
organizational direction. Studies that have addressed linkages between
strategic decision processes and organizational direction (Bourgeois,
1980; Mintzberg et al., 1976) have typically paid little attention to
the role of group-level information-processing constructs such as group
cognitive style.

Characteristics of group decision-making processes have been
analyzed within the strategy literature by Bourgeois and Eisenhardt
(1988). They observed that better decisions (as measured by firm
performance) were made by top management teams that acted quickly and
that, contrary to previous assumptions, the faster decision-making teams
used more information and more group discussion of that information than
slow decision-making teams. We would propose that the concept of group
cognitive style might explain these findings. If a group of decision
makers or the top management team have been working together for an
extended period of time, we suggest that they may have developed a group
cognitive style that facilitates strategic decision making and the use
of information in that decision-making process.

Research on diversity and/or heterogeneity of decision-making
groups or the top management team has shown, in many cases, that
diversity and/or heterogeneity in the group improves the decision-making
process (Bantel and Jackson, 1989; Eisenhardt and Schoonhoven, 1990;
Finkelstein and Hambrick, 1990; Wiersema and Bantel, 1992). Research has
also shown that diversity of participants, without sharing or
integrating their perspectives, does not enhance group performance. We
propose that this integration of diverse perspectives is in fact group
cognitive style.

Managerial Implications

This research suggests that a focus on the cognitive processes of
decision-making groups within the organization may offer substantially
greater power to predict strategic decision-making processes, the types
of solutions that are habitually chosen, and possibly even firm
performance based on those solutions. The model has practical
implications that should be discussed.

One practical application of the concept of group cognitive style
may lie in selecting or designing groups of decision makers to match a
specific decision task or portion of a decision task. It may be that
certain group cognitive styles are more effective during different
stages of the decision-making process. For instance, perhaps perceiving
groups who prefer gathering information rather than making decisions
should be used in the early stages of the decision process. Judging
groups, with a preference for evaluation and decision making, should be
used in later stages. Perhaps extraverted groups will be more effective
in service-based industries where an external focus on customers is
imperative, while introverted groups who are internally focused might be
more effective in production-based or commodity-based industries.

This model also has significant practical implications in terms of
organizational development and managerial interventions. When group
cognitive style is not effective in response to environmental
challenges, interventions are necessary if organizational decline is to
be avoided. Environmental challenges that exceed the bounds or
capabilities of certain group cognitive styles create the need for new
perspectives or a new group style. New or different interpretations of
environmental context may be required. Such intervention possibilities
range from the infusion of new members with different cognitive styles
to the group to the most drastic type of intervention, replacement of
the entire decision-making group or even the entire top management team.

The concept of group cognitive style may also provide an
explanation for strategic mal-adaptation or stagnation. Empirical
research and the popular business press are replete with examples of
firms that have clung tenaciously to their strategies long after
environmental change had doomed them to failure. For example, IBM continued producing and servicing mainframe computers long after market
demand for this product considerably weakened. The obvious theoretical
and empirical question is: Why do firms such as IBM persist in this
behavior? The concept of group cognitive style may provide one answer to
this question. Companies, like individuals, tend to resist change. When
we develop a "style" of decision making, we tend to continue
to use that style even in the face of information that indicates that it
may no longer be effective. If the team at IBM that was in charge of
manufacturing and product development was an introverted team, it would
not look to outside consultants or other individuals for recommendations
on product development. If it were a sensing team versus an intuitive
team, its decision-making process would focus on the immediate situation
rather than the long-term situation. If it was a perceiving team versus
a judging team, it would prefer to continue gathering information rather
than making a decision. Even if it realized that the environment was
changing, the decision to stop producing mainframe computers might not
be made.

Lastly, in more general terms, managers must realize that in order
to effectively manage work groups and decision-making teams, they must
understand the underlying psychological impact of individual cognitive
styles and social interaction. With a better understanding of the
concept of group cognitive style, managers may be able to create groups
with different strengths based on the composition of group members. For
instance, if information is needed from outside the group or the
organization, an extraverted group might be more effective than an
introverted group or if time is not a factor in the decision-making
process a perceiving group would be likely to come up with more
alternatives and thus possibly a better decision than a judging group
with the tendency to make a decision quickly without gathering
additional information.

Implications for Future Research

In considering future research implications, a number of issues
should be addressed and issues previously discussed should be
reiterated. The concept of group cognitive style provides the beginnings
of a rich conceptual framework to explain strategic behavior in an
organization, and ultimately the direction the organization will take.
Research could benefit by moving beyond the use of demographics as
proxies for other heterogeneity constructs. As we propose in our model,
it is important to directly conceptualize and measure cognitive
constructs that researchers assume underlie these demographic variables.
Since our propositions are potentially competing explanations of the
development of group cognitive style, empirical research is needed to
determine what individual cognitive style composition and social
interaction variables actually determine this group-level construct.
Given that many investigators agree that group-level analysis is needed
(Hambrick, 1987; Staw, 1991), in-depth case analysis could provide the
foundation for the development of a group cognitive style scale.

An interesting question for future research concerns the
homogeneity or heterogeneity both within decision-making groups and
across groups within an organization. Homogeneity of groups within the
organization may lead to "tunnel vision" on the part of the
organization, while heterogeneity of group styles may lead to an
organization which is adaptive and responsive to the environment. While
some research has been done in this area (Hambrick, 1987; Hambrick and
Mason, 1984), it has focused mainly on demographic variables rather than
psychological variables.

Research that examines group-level psychological variables is
important. All of the issues discussed in this section, and perhaps many
more, may be answered by focusing research efforts on examining the role
that group cognitive style plays in the process of organizational
decision making.

Table 1: Behavior Tendencies of Jungian Dimensions
Jungian Dimensions Behavioral Tendencies
Perception Like to gather information.
Often move from one project to another.
Prefer to remain flexible and are
spontaneous and adaptable.
Sensing Focus on immediate experience.
Strong observation and memory skills.
Intuition Have future orientation.
Tend to be theoretical, abstract
thinkers.
Judgment Like to evaluate information.
Tend to finish tasks before moving on.
Prefer order and structure and like to
make plans.
Thinking Rely on cognition over affect.
May appear impersonal.
Feeling Rely on affect over cognition.
Tend to use logic to support feelings.
Extraversion Verbalize ideas in order to reinforce
them.
Respond to questions quickly.
Prefer face-to-face meetings.
Introversion Seldom verbalize ideas or opinions.
Respond only after reflection.
Prefer written forms of communication.

Hurwitz, J., A. Zander and B. Hymovitch. 1968. "Some Effects
of Power on the Relations Among Group Members." In Group Dynamics.
Eds. D. Cartwright and A. Zander. New York, NY: Harper and Row. pp.
291-297.